U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 29, 2009 01:38 AM UTC
25 Comments
but Ritter is just making mistake after mistake.
More than anything I’d really like to see another round of polling, especially on the favorable versus unfavorable numbers. People were making a big fuss over that PPP poll, but what if it was right and Ritter is headed straight off the cliff? Are we going to sit idly by while he throws away the one thing–his incumbency–that he had going for him going into 2010?
All I know is that Josh Penry has got to be loving this; both his primary opponent and his general election opponent look about as strong as a limp noodle.
The local governments are likely raising all manner of heck. Thousands of veto calls have likely arrived.
On the Press: I’m sure Dean Singleton, politely discussed over a drink at the Mansion, that he is ready-willing-able to complete a second front page editorial.
On Labor: They’ll go ballistic and have probably shot a series of commercials using the same Right-to-Work firemen.
On a Decision: He won’t sign it, that would hurt too bad. He could let it become law and try to wash his hands, that’s politically easier and Singleton can’t front page him. Likely he veto’s it as an invasion of local matters, blah, blah, blah.
Hard copies of a positive Singleton front page editorial have a longer shelf life then 30 days of ads from the SEIU.
Maybe he’s trying to have a “Sister Souljah Moment” by attacking one of the most reliable constituent groups in his party so he can brag about it while campaigning for unaffiliated voters in Oct. ’10.
The problem is he’s likely to provoke a primary challenger come Aug. ’10. There’s a long list of Dems in the legislature who are term limited and PO’d with Ritter for various reasons.
Has Hickenlooper unequivocally ruled out a run against Ritter next year?
would have to emerge long before Aug. ’10. But you’re right, there are a lot of Dems with no foreseeable political futures who might roll the dice. This makes a lot more sense than challenging Bennet, who has the full support of the Obama administration and the DSCC.
It’s clearly not labor.
It’s clearly not small business.
It’s unlikely to be big business because they vote Republican no matter what.
He has green energy proponents, but aside from that…
It tough to be the Guv, especially when the expected policy program can’t be delivered.
Hickenlooper has raised taxes each year, if the Democrat strategy is to feed the beast, he’s your man.
He has that well-heeled Denver business crowd in line and a Bennet-Hick 2010 campaign would run smooth too.
As you know, Hick cannot raises taxes. What he can, and did, do was support putting proposed tax increases on the ballot which the Denver voters then raised.
He needs to stop vetoing bills passed by the Dem majority legislature Colorado Dems worked so hard to elect. He needs to remember that one reason many Dem women accepted him in spite of his anti-choice position was that at least he wouldn’t veto Dem bills the way a Republican would. I don’t know what the upside is for him but I’m seeing less and less upside for the Dems who somewhat reluctantly supported him the first time.
The best I can think of is that an R would suck more but I’m not going to spend time selling THAT door to door come election time. Can we petition Obama to appoint him to something so we can have a do-over?
….to register as an Unaffiliated. Then, he can petition on the ballot, avoid a primary altogether, and use his own money (and connections) to bankroll a formidable campaign. He doesn’t have to get 50% in the General, only more votes than anyone else (which with Ritter’s string of bonehead moves is looking more and more likely).
with his own support groups.
Now if only we had someone to run against him.
As a Republican you’re a member of a shrinking minority and as a moderate in the Republican party you’re at endangered species level. So what majority at are you talking about?
And I think a lot of people, regardless of party affiliation, view themselves as somewhat moderate and would like to seek common ground.
This bill is about one thing and one thing only – money. It substitutes a special election for the right to strike. In other words, if the public employer and the union can’t agree on the terms of a new contract, then the final proposals made by the union or the city (or fire district) on only those issues still in dispute are submitted to the voters and electorate picks which one will become the new contract. If the city (or fire district) refuses the union’s offer, the union can go into court to force the election.
The question then becomes what will really happen if this becomes law. First, elections are expensive propositions for a city and even more so for a fire district. Fire districts simply don’t have the funds to pay for an election which means they are going to be more likely to just cave into union demands. SB 180 assesses the cost of the election agaisnt the party that refuses the other sides final offer. The election provision is designed to pressure the districts into acquiesing to the union’s demands.
Second, holding an election so the electorate can, in essence, mediate and negotiate the final terms of a collective bargianing agreement is bad policy.
Third, and I haven’t had time to thoroughly research this issue, but there are limitations on public entities that restrict them or prohibit them from expending tax revenues on eleciton campaigns on issues referred to the voters. If those statutes apply, then the eleciton provision of SB 180 is a ruse.
I’d recommend Gov. Ritter veto SB 180.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that on the other labor bill he vetoed last week, he told the members of the general assembly, including the sponsors, all along that he would veto it but they went ahead and called his bluff. He wasn’t bluffing. Their feigned surprise wasn’t because he hadn’t told them that he would veto the bill, it came from the fact they didn’t believe him. They should have.
You could be entirely right on the details (and I would bet you are), but Pols has still got the optics right.
On these and other bills Ritter knew would cause a ruckus, the governor should have worked better with the Dem legislators to make sure they didn’t pass bills he would veto.
Your point about his buffing, or not, on the lockout benefits is well taken, but if your own party is driving off a cliff of your own making, you should make sure everyone knows it, not just the bill’s sponsors. This wasn’t his first session as governor, he should have figured out how to work it by now.
Ritter could have worked with legislators to change the points of the bill that he didn’t like.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
denver and the west
Ritter veto stirs disunion
Pro-labor bill’s legislative backers feel blindsided
By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post
The fuming over Gov. Bill Ritter’s recent veto of a labor bill continues as angry critics swear that he never told Democratic leadership, bill sponsors or union backers that he planned to kill it.
There are two sides of the coin here: policy and politics.
Policy wise, SB180 is not a good bill. R36 listed the main points as to why Ritter should veto. Additionally, SB180 would supersede past municipal votes where collective bargaining was defeated. SB180 would ignore the will of these voters and mandate a collective bargaining process.
Politically, Ritter put himself in a tough spot vetoing 1170. He should have saved the union veto for 180 instead. Now he has to choose between upsetting a base constituency or allowing poor policy to become law.
As to Ritter vetoing bills passed by Democrats – just because they’re Democrats doesn’t mean the bills they pass are good. There are plenty of half baked, silly Democrat ideas that become laws that deserve vetoes and plenty of great bills that could accomplish much, yet legislators aren’t willing or can’t pass them. Maybe if the Democrats in the Senate and House had a sound strategy and worked together instead of advancing their own agendas all the time, we may have better coordination between the 1st and 2nd floors.
Ritter should veto 180.
without the need to get potential member support … unions could force arbitration, work rules, elections and binding contracts on Colorado’s local governments.
Why aren’t the 1st responders running a media campaign ala A-47?
Why veto two idiotic, common-sense bills in a weak-kneed attempt to woo the business vote?
His EO alerted us to who he is.
Hasta, homie.
I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding anything in it. It’s a perfect answer
mls
Your real estate advice looks to be as good as your political sense!
Was a poorly drafted bill that forces collective bargaining where it is not warranted or needed. While I thought he should sign 1170 as it was only a matter of fairness, SB 180 is a piece of crap. Unfortunately he has played this so badly, that I think politically he should sign 180, even though it is horrible public policy and really going to cost local governments, and ultimately taxpayers for no good reason.
Is anyone really surprised by any of this?
I mean, come on, Ritter has been spitting in the eye of unions ever since he got elected.
He faces no competent challengers and can run roughshod over a disorganized and spineless Democratic party.
Denver has no activists to speak of and countless armies of back-slapping sycophants anxious to pay anything to sit at this round table. Obama won Colorado because he turned down the Colorado Democratic Party’s help and ran the organization with his own people. They can’t make any decisions without a committee racking its collective noggin for six months, and then taking six months to figure out how to document the decision and then they have to make sure everyone agrees equally since there’s no leadership.
Ritter can do anything he damn well pleases, and he knows it, and is lining his pockets with the money of local businesses and destroying the spine of whatever was left of unions to make his coffers that much richer. What does he care? He, Goober Hickenlooper, and the rest of his cadre, would poop in your tin cup if you were homeless and begging for enough change to buy a happy meal.
You get out what you put in.